1. So some quick thoughts on that Jordan Peterson op-ed, because I know some of you are going to fall for his argument.

I agree overall that merit and equity need to be better balanced, but I can't think of a worse person to have this conversation with than Jordan Peterson.
2. Look, I'll be the first to agree that "fill out a form online to show us you've thought about intersectionality" isn't the solution that some institutions think it is. They just haven't thought of anything better.
3. The problem with some of these critics (like Peterson's op-ed and George Will before him), is that they point to these annoying examples (which everyone agrees is dumb) and then try to dismiss the need for equity altogether.
4. Advocating for equity (as justice and fairness) is not to be against meritocracy. It is the demand that merit be judged on an equal playing field. It is the argument that structural disadvantages and prevailing prejudices are actually working against a pure meritocracy.
5. It is true that, in practice, this has at times descended into ridiculous "check box if you thought about hiring a woman" initiatives, which don't really do anything. But, that doesn't negate the truth of the problem.
6. Bureaucracies have dealt with this like bureaucracies deal with anything: never met a webinar they didn't like. And that sucks.
7. But, the notion that meritocracy happens in some idealistic void absent socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, gender, and other factors is wrong *points to literally decades of research*
8/8. There are indeed adult conversations to be had about these issues, but they have to be honest about trying to offer new and better solutions - not more smug op-eds.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Amarnath Amarasingam

Amarnath Amarasingam Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AmarAmarasingam

Nov 27, 2021
1. Quick Thread

Joe Rogan's mention of the Kali Yuga is making the rounds, and some seem to be suggesting that it automatically means he is dabbling in far-right and esoteric Hitler content

The yugas (cylical ages) are basic aspects of Hindu cosmology. It's not a far-right idea
2. Yes, it has made its way into far-right discourse, through people like Devi, but it is also very much prevalent in New Age movements.

Joe Rogan has had a long running interest in New Age ways of thinking, including natural medicine, supplements, etc.
3. Until there's more evidence that he's going full esoteric Hitler, I think it's more likely that he's coming at it from the New Age angle

Is it possible that some far-right guy is whispering into his ear, and he is repeating it to his gazillion followers uncritically? Sure.
Read 5 tweets
Jul 21, 2021
1. So, a few thoughts on this because it has the potential to do some real damage in this space. There will be a lot of dunking on former extremists, using Heimbach as some sort of example for why formers are liars, shouldn’t be trusted and so on. And this is wrong. Here’s why:
2. Heimbach wasn’t believed by most of us in the field from the very beginning. He didn’t seem like he was doing the work on himself, didn’t seem like he was actually repentant, and there was a lot of suspicion that he was using the “former” platform to basically troll people.
3. 2nd, don’t let Heimbach's example negatively color the experience of all formers. I know, am good friends with & have interviewed dozens and dozens of former extremists – across the ideological spectrum – and all of them are on slow, painful, trauma-ridden journeys out of hate
Read 11 tweets
Jun 9, 2021
1/ I was losing track, so I thought I would type out everything we know about London attack suspect Nathaniel Veltman so far.

Bringing all the info into one place because the reporting is scattered across different outlets:
2/ (a)The day after the attack, London police said: "There is evidence that this was a planned, premeditated act and that the family was targeted because of their Muslim faith". The suspect did not know the victims.
3/ (b)He has been charged with 4 counts of first-degree murder and 1 count of attempted murder; police are considering additional charges.
(c)So far, he has no known ties to hate groups
(d)He was arrested 7km from the site. He pulled up behind a parked taxi.
Read 10 tweets
Apr 9, 2021
1. "Regardless of intent or ignorance of a second meaning". I'm done with y'all.

I found myself just staring at Mia’s initial comments a few hours ago, wondering what state of mind I would need to be in to call someone who mildly critiqued my work a bitch and a whore.
2. And what got me was the audacity and insecurity of it all. @nimmideviarchy critique was sharp, but also one that had been made countless times: that Western writers often bring the “white feminist framework into her probe of female extremists abroad.” lareviewofbooks.org/article/eviden…
3. The proper response to this, one would think – for an adult and tenured professor who has been in the game for a few decades – was to write a response showing where the critique is wrong. An article or tweet thread should suffice. This is how this shit works.
Read 15 tweets
Mar 24, 2021
Someone asked whether COVID impacted mass shootings in the US

Not according to the Gun Violence Archive (which defines mass shooting as "4 or more people shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter")

2015: 336
2016: 382
2017: 346
2018: 336
2019: 417
2020: 611
In terms of school shootings, which is defined broadly in the @K12ssdb (see highlight), COVID did have an impact (only 1 active shooter situation in 2020, down from 7 in 2019 and 11 in 2018). chds.us/ssdb/
Read 5 tweets
Mar 5, 2021
1/ Some of the discussion so far about QAnon and Evangelicals has been a bit simplistic and ahistorical.

Short thread on some of the mistakes I’ve seen: First, the term "evangelical" in the US means you are talking about around 100 million people.
2/ They are not a homogenous glob moving in tandem. The better term for the precise issue we are talking about is probably "Christian nationalists".
3/ Christian nationalism is an ideology that fights for a fusion of religion and politics, that American civic life needs to be "Christian again". While there's some overlap between evangelicals and Christian nationalists, it's analytically useful to look at them separately.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!